MUST READ: SWAT team brings in a man, seizes his legally purchased guns-for a crime no one committed

REASON ^ | June 2010 issue | Radley Balko

[Former Military Chick]

Anyone outraged by this article? If so pass it along, because the idea that you can search without a warrant, seize w/o a warrant, based on no crime, only the offerings of another that a man may be nuts is NUTS. Now if he were nuts, and based on some type of reasoned SOP than I MIGHT entertain the discussion of the ability of the police to do this. But, not to remove his legally obtained weapons, this is just NUTS.

SWAT, what if he hadn't complied peacefully, it appears without a crime, they sure thought it was possible.

It is worthy of a second read. Love the idea that this may rise to "kidnapping"

If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere. I am going to call our local cops to see what the SOP is here, offering to send this article as the purpose of my inquiry.

Stunning article.

~FMC

[agere_contra]

Oregon has a Pre-Crime division. Not good.

[TexasCajun]

It's called Pre-Crime !

Welcome to 1984. ...errr 2010.

[TChris]

The department of Pre-Crime grows.

A decent defense attorney would have this guy sprung in about 10 minutes, and the DA backpedaling his butt off.

[RobRoy]

[swarthyguy]

But, but, it’s for the “general welfare”, it’s there in the Constitution.

Sovietesque.

Not a crime, but a crime. Not an arrest, but an arrest.

Refuse, and it’s a crime. Kinda like the Breathalyser.

Nannyism uber Alles.

[rahbert]

Lawsuit filed?

[RobRoy]

Here is the reason they failed: He did not respond the way they wanted him to. He gave himself up.

What if he had said, “I’ve done nothing wrong, and unless you have a warrant, I expect you to leave my property.” Would it have escalated? Could they have said they have one of these “nutcase constitutionalist TEA baggers ‘holed up’ in his home”?

I think they were the equivalent of a man poking a bear, just hoping it would swat at him so he could shoot it.

[Paladin2]

The cops have police powers. Best not to shoot it out with them, except later in court.

[dblshot]

[LaineyDee]

What I’m curious about is ....who filed a complaint against this man and started the series of events which unfolded? They should be held accountable.

[secretagent]

I want these law enforcement officials held personally responsible,” Leuenberger says. “I want them criminally charged.”

Me too.

[TChris]

Got a “no hotlinking” image instead... You’ll have to try a different source.

[Filo]

Just another random, isolated example of the 99% giving the 1% a bad name.

These cops should be criminally charged and police, when convicted, should be subject to substantially harsher penalties than citizens and should not be protected from serving their time in the general population.

If the police ever suffered legitimate punishment for breaking the law maybe they'd start to "serve and protect" again.

[benewton]

If each Jew taken in Germany back in the ‘40s had shot just one...

[sport]

” what if he hadn’t complied peacefully, it appears without a crime, they sure thought it was possible. “

He would have been killed and the SWAT team would have found drugs in his house and child porn on his computer.

They would have put them there, but, that is what the search would have turned up and after that they would have killed his dog and burned his house.

[Talisker]

Joseph Bloom, a psychiatrist at Oregon Health and Science University and an expert on civil commitment law, says the police who apprehended and detained Pyles likely were acting within the state’s laws. Bloom says the police are permitted to decide on their own to take someone in for an evaluation, and that there’s no requirement that they first consult with a judge or a mental health professional.

Always watch out for the professional liars - they're the worst. What Bloom isn't saying is that it is precisely the fact that these police abused their powers of evaluation to make this raid. Those powers are not devoid of responsibility. Put on the stand, these cops will not be able to justify their evaluatory conclusions, and the state will therefore not back them up since without justification, it was an abuse of power. So the suit will nail the cops for abuse, and the state for lack of oversight and training.

Of course, in truth this was a political op to push the boundaries of acclimitization for civil SWAT raids with no probable cause to either shoot political enemies dead or throw them into psychiatric lockups. Sound farfetched? Read about the Soviet Union psych prisons - and then read Cass Sunstein and Elena Kagan...

[JrsyJack]

Bloom says the police are permitted to decide on their own to take someone in for an evaluation, and that there’s no requirement that they first consult with a judge or a mental health professional.

Frightening! Exactly where do they get this power? Are they exempt from the Constitutional restraints of Due Process, Illegal Search and Seizure or Equal Protection? Sounds like Soviet style "disappearing" tactics. What happens if you resist the Police "diagnosis," do they get to shoot you down like a dog?

[dead]

“In my opinion, the apprehension of David Pyles was a violation of Oregon’s kidnapping laws,” says James Leuenberger, a criminal defense attorney who is advising Pyles. “He definitely deserves to be compensated for what they did to him, but even if he wins a civil rights suit, that will just result in the officers’ employers paying for their mistakes.” That means the final tab will be paid by Oregon taxpayers, not the offending cops. “I want these law enforcement officials held personally responsible,” Leuenberger says. “I want them criminally charged.”

Good lawyer. Hope he fries them.

[sport]

I think that you are correct.